American Revolution: Biblical or Not?

[Wilchbla]

Actually, we can't know. For all we know, had the American colonies chose the same course as the Canadian colonies, it's possible the Lord would have begun something here that would have swept through the entire British Empire bringing not only a more free government but more importantly bringing Christ to the masses.

There is a mighty move of God going on in communist China right now. Massive numbers of people are coming to Christ. Does that mean communism is being blessed?

Does Scripture teach that the ends justify the means?

The Tories that fled to Canada after the war did not fair spiritually better than those who stayed in America. If they did they sure left no sign of it behind.

As far as China you can't honestly say the Christians there faired better when the Commies took over. They are in constant straits for outside help. Edited October 25, 2010 by Wilchbla

[John81]

Sorry for not getting back sooner. As for scripture for rissing up for high taxes, you will find that in 1 Kings chapter 12. RehOBoam is to become King in his father, Solomon, place. The people asked that the heavy burden of Solomon be lifted off them. He goes and the old men tell him he should listen to the people and lift it. He then speaks to the young men he grew up with. They tell him he should make it hardeon the people to teach them a lesson for asking. The Bible calls him "the King" yet we find the people turning to JerOBoam to make him King over the ten tribes. They did as the colonists did. And the reason was over taxation, and the Bible says in verse 15 "for the cause was from the Lord, that he might preform his saying" (from the center of the verse). God says he led RehOBoam to increase the burden and punishment so that they people would turn from the king. Who are we to say King George was not led to burden the colonists so that they would declare their independance just as the ten tribes did. I realize this does not give a NT verse saying we can rise up, but it shows that in the OT God used such to bring about what he desired. The colonists never stepped outside of Govt, but declared, as the ten tribes, they were independant. RehOBoam was told by God NOT to rise up against them. Was King George going against Bible example be rising up?

These were not Christians under the New Covenant. Christians are set to higher standards and expected to hold to such. The example given was of God punishing Solomon by rending the kingdom from his son. God spoke directly to this situation, as He did in Israel at that time. Such doesn't apply to NT Christians who have been given His Word and commanded to live by it.

The Romans had conquered Israel and imposed high taxes upon them. They were greatly persecuting Christians, even unto imprisonment and death. In the midst of all this Jesus and the Apostles all called for OBedience to the government and for Christians to set their eyes on the kingdom of God, not upon this world, and to busy themselves spreading the Gospel and growing in Christ.

[John81]

But according to your interpretation of Romans 13 this is the proper approach. Allegiance no matter what.

I believe Jerry was speaking of those who hold up patriotism as being equal to Christianity, and even a part of Christianity, and tend to view their country as virtually perfect.

We are commanded to be OBedient to our earthly government but our allegiance is to be to the kingdom of God.

[John81]

The Tories that fled to Canada after the war did not fair spiritually better than those who stayed in America. If they did they sure left no sign of it behind.

As far as China you can't honestly say the Christians there faired better when the Commies took over. They are in constant straits for outside help.

This is the point. We can't know for certain what would or wouldn't have happened had Christians OBeyed the Word and allowed things to work out in God's time as they were busy spreading the Gospel and growing in Christ.

The point about China is that victory isn't necessarily a sign of God's approval.

As the Lord points out, He causes the sun and rain to be upon both the just and the unjust.

Christians fairing well isn't necessarily a sign of anything either. In many cases, when Christians have been under great persecution (not fairing well) the Gospel was proclaimed more fervently with great glory and honour being reaped for the Lord.

Scripture doesn't teach that the ends justify the means. Rather Scripture teaches that if we love Christ, we will OBey His Word.

[Annie]

These were not Christians under the New Covenant. Christians are set to higher standards and expected to hold to such. The example given was of God punishing Solomon by rending the kingdom from his son. God spoke directly to this situation, as He did in Israel at that time. Such doesn't apply to NT Christians who have been given His Word and commanded to live by it.

The Romans had conquered Israel and imposed high taxes upon them. They were greatly persecuting Christians, even unto imprisonment and death. In the midst of all this Jesus and the Apostles all called for OBedience to the government and for Christians to set their eyes on the kingdom of God, not upon this world, and to busy themselves spreading the Gospel and growing in Christ.

John, here's another inconsistency I've noticed: You use the OT to bolster your own view (post #102), but cry foul when someone else does the same thing, saying, "These were not Christians under the new covenant." As the original poster, you do have the prerogative to set the parameters of the discussion, but you should at least follow your own rules.

IMO, the fact that God spoke directly to this situation only advances the idea that He is not as opposed to independence as you've said He is.

And then there's that bit about the War Between the States that you haven't addressed...

[Invicta]

The Tories that fled to Canada after the war did not fair spiritually better than those who stayed in America. If they did they sure left no sign of it behind.

As far as China you can't honestly say the Christians there faired better when the Commies took over. They are in constant straits for outside help.

On the face of it, perhaps, but the church flourised underground during the bad years. Jesus said, "In this world you will have tribulation." We have no right to "fair better" than the chinese or those under the inquisition.

One of our deacons said he didn't believe that the church would go through tribulation. What world is he living in? Has he never heard of the inquisition. Has he never heard of the 'Iron virgin' of Nuremburg? That terrible idol of Rome that opened for the victimes to be placed in and terrible spikes inside pierced the victim when it was closed, and when opened, the victim fell into the river below, just another of Rome's human sacrifices.

Just about 26 miles from here, in Maidstone, there was a magistrate known as 'Justice 9 holes' who drilled 9 holes in the panel of the church balcony to see who was not worshipping the 'host' and dragging them of to be tried. Just another part of the tribulation. Edited October 25, 2010 by Invicta

[John81]

John, here's another inconsistency I've noticed: You use the OT to bolster your own view (post #102), but cry foul when someone else does the same thing, saying, "These were not Christians under the new covenant." As the original poster, you do have the prerogative to set the parameters of the discussion, but you should at least follow your own rules.

IMO, the fact that God spoke directly to this situation only advances the idea that He is not as opposed to independence as you've said He is.

And then there's that bit about the War Between the States that you haven't addressed...

Not an inconsistency. The verse from First Samuel is directly related to the verse in Romans. Then we are given an example of David following that even though it would have been much easier, and would have even appeared right to most, had he took another course.

I've never said God is against independence (whatever ones view of that is), but that if it's God's will for such He will bring it about without Christians having to violate His Word.

While many seem to think America was a Constitution following Christian nation from birth until the mid-20th century, if we check the history we learn it all started going the wrong direction very early.

This is a thread dealing with the American Revolution. If you wish to start a thread dealing with another war, you are free to do so.

[Annie]

Not an inconsistency. The verse from First Samuel is directly related to the verse in Romans.

Not any more directly related than the narrative of RehOBoam...

Then we are given an example of David following that even though it would have been much easier, and would have even appeared right to most, had he took another course.

David's situation was completely different than the colonists'. He would have killed and deposed Saul, assuming his throne, a la French Revolution. David would have ruled the whole nation of Israel as a usurper. The colonists made no effort to kill or depose King George, sit on his throne, or rule over his kingdom. They merely established a completely separate nation. Totally different concept.

I've never said God is against independence (whatever ones view of that is), but that if it's God's will for such He will bring it about without Christians having to violate His Word.

You haven't shown that what the colonists did was in violation of His Word.

While many seem to think America was a Constitution following Christian nation from birth until the mid-20th century, if we check the history we learn it all started going the wrong direction very early.

I agree...I've never been under the notion that America is/was a "Christian nation" in any more than in the broadest sense. The idea of separation of church and state (and, therefore, freedom of religion) was a major reason the American colonies were established in the first place. Being made up of fallen people, America got off course early in its history. I'm certainly not blind to that fact. I don't think of the WFI as a "Christian" thing at all. I'm just saying that a war for independence is not condemned by Romans 13, as long as its OBject is not anarchy.

This is a thread dealing with the American Revolution. If you wish to start a thread dealing with another war, you are free to do so.

John, that's like saying, "This is a thread dealing with the American Revolution. If you wish to start a thread dealing with the Constitution, the concept of treason, or the conflicts of ancient Hebrews, you are free to do so." We discuss these other issues because they directly pertain to the topic at hand; they're not separate ideas. The War Between the States does in fact fit nicely into this discussion, since there are so many parallels between the two conflicts (location, secession, government, independence, Romans 13, etc.). Your stubbornness upon this point reveals a weakness in your position. Edited October 25, 2010 by Annie

[John81]

There is no way to abide by Romans 13 and partake in a revolution if one takes the words of Romans 13 as presented.

[Brother Rick]

There is no way to abide by Romans 13 and partake in a revolution if one takes the words of Romans 13 as presented.

So the South was wrong?

[John81]

So the South was wrong?

Why the continual attempt to divert the topic rather than actually addressing Romans 13 and the purpose of this thread?

[Brother Rick]

Why the continual attempt to divert the topic rather than actually addressing Romans 13 and the purpose of this thread?

To see if you're willing to be consistent in your view. Are you?

[John81]

To see if you're willing to be consistent in your view. Are you?

Yes, but if you wish to discuss other aspects please start another thread.

[Brother Rick]

Yes, but if you wish to discuss other aspects please start another thread.

You've been asked several times, a simple "yes" or "no" would do - no need for elaboration. Was the South wrong in rebelling against the Union, yes or no?

I have no follow up questions and have no intention to derail this thread. I, as many others, just want you answer a very simple question that is very much related to the subject matter in this thread.

[John81]

You've been asked several times, a simple "yes" or "no" would do - no need for elaboration. Was the South wrong in rebelling against the Union, yes or no?

I have no follow up questions and have no intention to derail this thread. I, as many others, just want you answer a very simple question that is very much related to the subject matter in this thread.

Considering that war took place decades after the American Revolution it has no bearing on the question of this thread. Most folks tend to want to go off in various other directions rather than addressing the clear wording of Romans 13 so I'm simply trying to keep this very focused.